Dukhasinov

Weis and Benioff are missing the point of Robert`s Rebellion

84 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Jon Snow is a loser said:

 

I am gonna call bullshit on this. 

This is stereotypical view that people have of medieval Europe & it is incorrect as hell. 

On the life expectancy part, bear in mind that the average was lowered down by the super high infant & child mortality rate. However for people who survived childhood it could be well expected that they would most likely live into their 50s. 

As for marriage age, what you said is incorrect either. Average marriage age varied depending on the location & period but the most common trend was earlier twenties for men & late teen for women. Your assertion that "By 16 she was a bit past her prime, and by 18 she would be a spinster and unlikely to ever marry." has no basis in reality. 

You're actually right. However, that doesn't matter. 

Look, I hate to pull this card but at the end of the day Planetos is not earth. They have different rules there. Kinda like how people can be stuck in midieval times for thousands of years, when we on earth progressed rather damn fast through it. Our middle ages lasted like 500 years only. 

 

Also, you can look to other nations today and see that nothing is normal. Here we think sex with a 14 year old is pedo, but there are countries who think that's legal. You can't look at another culture and decide that your way of thinking is objectively right and theirs is wrong. That kind of thinking is why many natives were considered savages by conquerors. 

At the end of the day, it's really just that simple. In this world, marrying what we consider to be a child is normal. Just like a teenager leading armies and besting grown knights is also normal. So when you look at actions based on the rules of this world, Drogo was extremely gentle and caring. He didn't have to be. He could have pulled a Ramsay, and in world even what ramsay did probably isn't considered rape. 

 

You cannot hold this universe to the same rules and sensibilities as (your country) in current times. You just can't.

Edited by MrJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jon Snow is a loser said:

 

I am gonna call bullshit on this. 

This is stereotypical view that people have of medieval Europe & it is incorrect as hell. 

On the life expectancy part, bear in mind that the average was lowered down by the super high infant & child mortality rate. However for people who survived childhood it could be well expected that they would most likely live into their 50s. 

As for marriage age, what you said is incorrect either. Average marriage age varied depending on the location & period but the most common trend was earlier twenties for men & late teen for women. Your assertion that "By 16 she was a bit past her prime, and by 18 she would be a spinster and unlikely to ever marry." has no basis in reality. 

Find me one single source where marriage during medieval times with a girl age 12 or older was considered pedophilia. Just one. I'll wait.

You're right that life expectancy was lowered by high child and infant mortality. But if you're claiming that marriage of 13-, 14- or 15-year-old girls was anything but perfectly normal, you're not. Reality was just like ASOIAF: a menstruating girl was marriageable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hodor's Dragon said:

Find me one single source where marriage during medieval times with a girl age 12 or older was considered pedophilia. Just one. I'll wait.

You're right that life expectancy was lowered by high child and infant mortality. But if you're claiming that marriage of 13-, 14- or 15-year-old girls was anything but perfectly normal, you're not. Reality was just like ASOIAF: a menstruating girl was marriageable.

do you know how to read? where in my post I claimed girls of 13-14 were not marriageable? I was responding to a poster who claimed that 16-18 were too old to marry in medieval Europe  when that was not true at all, because in most of the periods & locations in medieval Europe that was the most likely marriage age for most of the women, barring exceptional circumstances like the surplus of manpower pushing the average age up or the lack of manpower pushing the average down (like after the Death Plague people married earlier than what considered normal because they need the population).  

Edited by Jon Snow is a loser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2017 at 0:38 PM, MrJay said:

You're actually right. However, that doesn't matter. 

Look, I hate to pull this card but at the end of the day Planetos is not earth. They have different rules there. Kinda like how people can be stuck in midieval times for thousands of years, when we on earth progressed rather damn fast through it. Our middle ages lasted like 500 years only. 

 

Also, you can look to other nations today and see that nothing is normal. Here we think sex with a 14 year old is pedo, but there are countries who think that's legal. You can't look at another culture and decide that your way of thinking is objectively right and theirs is wrong. That kind of thinking is why many natives were considered savages by conquerors. 

At the end of the day, it's really just that simple. In this world, marrying what we consider to be a child is normal. Just like a teenager leading armies and besting grown knights is also normal. So when you look at actions based on the rules of this world, Drogo was extremely gentle and caring. He didn't have to be. He could have pulled a Ramsay, and in world even what ramsay did probably isn't considered rape. 

 

You cannot hold this universe to the same rules and sensibilities as (your country) in current times. You just can't.

LOL my response has nothing to do with all of these. If I was interested in this debate I would have chimed in earlier when you & the others posters were debating this topic. 

I chimed in because you attempted to use a historical  argument to further your points that I found faulty, of which you now admit was not entirely correct. So I consider that a mute point now. You were the one bringing the historical argument of real world into this & were you think our real world situation has nothing to do with this you should be saying that earlier instead of using our real world history as argument and running away from it when it was debunked. 

Edited by Jon Snow is a loser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that Nobles would normally be betrothed and then marry at younger ages than commoners.

Nobles would need to marry and have children to preserve and protect the bloodline and family alliances. However, they'd also (usually) want to wait until the would-be wife was old enough to safely have children.

Commoners would normally wait until the couple were in a position where the couple could be assured of supporting themselves once married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jon Snow is a loser said:

LOL my response has nothing to do with all of these. If I was interested in this debate I would have chimed in earlier when you & the others posters were debating this topic. 

I chimed in because you attempted to use a historical  argument to further your points that I found faulty, of which you now admit was not entirely correct. So I consider that a mute point now. You were the one bringing the historical argument of real world into this & were you think our real world situation has nothing to do with this you should be saying that earlier instead of using our real world history as argument and running away from it when it was debunked. 

I think you have me mistaken with someone else. 

 

I read your other post and I see the discussion has taken a life of its own. I see your point actually. You're right. Normally folks did wait to get married when they were older in the real world. Also, nobles marrying young wasn't unheard of either. Thats beside what I said about fictional realities. So basically, all three points are separate topics and right with no contradiction. 

 

Basically, I think we all agree here and we are just arguing slightly different topics because we all forgot (or didn't read) what started thus train. 

Edited by MrJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a little unfair to claim the writers "don't get it". The show is catering to a tv audience, some of whom still think Dany is called Khalessi. They can to spell out R+L=J in very explicit terms. They need a simple story for this audience. A tragic love story is easier to sell than a political struggle with generations of history behind it.

There were already reasons why Aerys mistrusted the Starks, Arryns and Baratheons and vice versa. Rickard's Southron Ambitions or the fact that Robert lost his parents on a mission to find a bride for a Targaryen. Telling the whole story on tv would simply be impossible.

We've had the Robert / Lyanna / Rhaegar stuff on the show since early episode one when Robert and Ned went down the crypts. It's a simple yet emotional story that works better on tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RedShirt47 said:

I think it's a little unfair to claim the writers "don't get it". The show is catering to a tv audience, some of whom still think Dany is called Khalessi.

A show sets its own standard and audience. And I am not surprised with the discontent the show has created by alienating the book reading early audience. It's almost an insult now to even mention the books.

But yes, it is not about art it is about money. Dune had the same issues. LotR had issues but they somehow managed to stay closer to the books despite cutting Gondor a lot. It is sad that there are no Knight of Dol Amroth or that there is no Cair Andros. But it is not core to the story.

Aegon VI and the Blackfyres on the other hand ... there are quite some fishy things and focus going on even without knowing the end. Granted Ashara was never mentioned in the films and it is a hint that GRRM sees no connection there. But declaring Roberts rebellion as a lie is fucked up storywise. It was a rebellion. All rebels are evil. We would get that. Why even mention the red wedding when it is too hard to understand for the audience why it happened ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SirArthur said:

A show sets its own standard and audience. And I am not surprised with the discontent the show has created by alienating the book reading early audience. It's almost an insult now to even mention the books.

But yes, it is not about art it is about money. Dune had the same issues. LotR had issues but they somehow managed to stay closer to the books despite cutting Gondor a lot. It is sad that there are no Knight of Dol Amroth or that there is no Cair Andros. But it is not core to the story.

Aegon VI and the Blackfyres on the other hand ... there are quite some fishy things and focus going on even without knowing the end. Granted Ashara was never mentioned in the films and it is a hint that GRRM sees no connection there. But declaring Roberts rebellion as a lie is fucked up storywise. It was a rebellion. All rebels are evil. We would get that. Why even mention the red wedding when it is too hard to understand for the audience why it happened ?

Why should the show cater to a minority of its viewers?  The majority of its viewers are not, and probably never will be, readers of ASOIAF.  There is nothing fucked up about saying Robert's Rebellion was based on a lie when they just spelled out exactly why Bran would think it was based on a lie.  What more do you need?  Everyone assumed that Lyanna was kidnapped and that was a big part of Brandon and Rickard Stark's emotional reaction that led to them being murdered.  Does anything change if the truth was known?  Probably not but you could at least see why Bran would think that.

 

3 hours ago, RedShirt47 said:

I think it's a little unfair to claim the writers "don't get it". The show is catering to a tv audience, some of whom still think Dany is called Khalessi. They can to spell out R+L=J in very explicit terms. They need a simple story for this audience. A tragic love story is easier to sell than a political struggle with generations of history behind it.

There were already reasons why Aerys mistrusted the Starks, Arryns and Baratheons and vice versa. Rickard's Southron Ambitions or the fact that Robert lost his parents on a mission to find a bride for a Targaryen. Telling the whole story on tv would simply be impossible.

We've had the Robert / Lyanna / Rhaegar stuff on the show since early episode one when Robert and Ned went down the crypts. It's a simple yet emotional story that works better on tv.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 5:52 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I agree what followed her wedding night was a bit rape-y but it was still consenual. She never tries to stop him. I'm not saying it was good or romantic or right but it still doesn't fall in line with rape IMO. 

I don't recall the passage from Viserys saying he was surprised Drogo liked girls that young but it would appear Viserys is pretty much the only spoken character in the series that thinks so. Girls 13 & 14 get married all over Westeros. This is the age they are to get married. 

What exactly about her wedding night implies rape to you? Is it only her age? I'm just trying to figure out if I remember it differently than you or what. (Which is quite possible as it's been a while since I read the books.) 

This isn't the topic to go back and forth on this, but there is nothing consensual about Drogo coming into Dany's bed each night to have sex with her while she cries from pain and ponders committing suicide.  Her recollections immediately after the wedding chapter match exactly what the show decided to show on their wedding night- that she was being raped while crying.  

As for the wedding night, Dany is a 13 year old girl terrified of her abusive brother who threatens her with extreme violence if she doesn't "please" Drogo.  She doesn't want to marry Drogo and she is especially terrified of sex with him but she is even more afraid of Viserys and what he will do to her if she doesn't make Drogo happy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

Why should the show cater to a minority of its viewers? 

This was the exact point about Dune and LotR and why it was so hard to film them. I mean in the end it is the decision of GRRM if he cares about his work and provides any form of quality control. HBO needs a show not a faithful adaptation. And from all we see GRRM doesn't care.

Tells a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Tagganaro said:

This isn't the topic to go back and forth on this, but there is nothing consensual about Drogo coming into Dany's bed each night to have sex with her while she cries from pain and ponders committing suicide.  Her recollections immediately after the wedding chapter match exactly what the show decided to show on their wedding night- that she was being raped while crying.  

As for the wedding night, Dany is a 13 year old girl terrified of her abusive brother who threatens her with extreme violence if she doesn't "please" Drogo.  She doesn't want to marry Drogo and she is especially terrified of sex with him but she is even more afraid of Viserys and what he will do to her if she doesn't make Drogo happy.  

You're right this is off topic & after this reply I think we will just have to agree to disagree. 

Drogo can't be raping Danaerys if he doesn't know she doesn't want to. She specifically notes she is glad her face is in the pillow so Drogo doesn't know she is crying. It's sad & unbelievably tragic - not romantic in the least, but not rape either. 

Dany's age has nothing to do with it. If other posters haven't shown that to your satisfactory I won't be able to either. Dany is forced into a marriage & forced to have sex - just not by Drogo. We have no indication that Drogo has the slightest idea that Viserys has threatened Dany. He takes his new wife to have sex with her, figures out she is nervous, does his best to calm her, & when she agrees to sex they have it. I'm not denying this is a savage culture, degrading to women. I'm not implying Dany & Drogo's marriage was always nice & sweet & gentle or even morally right, only that on her wedding night she was not raped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the war started when the mad king killed the starks like he did as well as the others that he killed.

However it was the "kid napping" of lyanna that brought brandon stark to the red keep in the first place so in a way it started the war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2017 at 9:02 PM, Jon Snow is a loser said:

do you know how to read? where in my post I claimed girls of 13-14 were not marriageable? I was responding to a poster who claimed that 16-18 were too old to marry in medieval Europe  when that was not true at all, because in most of the periods & locations in medieval Europe that was the most likely marriage age for most of the women, barring exceptional circumstances like the surplus of manpower pushing the average age up or the lack of manpower pushing the average down (like after the Death Plague people married earlier than what considered normal because they need the population).  

Do you know how to not be a jackass when you post? Whatever you said to some other poster who said 16-18 was too old to marry in medieval Euruope, it was MY post you "call[ed] bullshit" on, and if you go back and look at my post (http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/148469-weis-and-benioff-are-missing-the-point-of-roberts-rebellion/&do=findComment&comment=8035418) you will see that it was explicitly about people who were referring to the Dany/Drogo marriage as "pedophilia."

Happy to hear your point of view, just knock the aggression down a few notches if you would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

viewers?  The majority of its viewers are not, and probably never will be, readers of ASOIAF.  

You may be right from a monetary sense, but I hate this. 

I hate when people are used and discarded like this. And yes, the early adopters were used. 

If GoT started like it did this season (spectacle over careful plot and intrigue) it would have been canceled season 1. People came to it because us book readers and early fans hyped the living hell out of it and everyone saw from episode 1 that this show was not your typical high fantasy. We craved something different and this show delivered. 

Now that the masses have jumped on the hype train, they are catered to *at the expense of the original fans*. Now your insights on characters and deep history and motives are rebuffed like you are some kind of pompous nerd. This is no longer our show,  despite it owing a great deal of its success to us.

That sucks. 

 

It sucks even more when you realize that 9/10 shows already cater to the masses who just want to see flashy lights and cool one liners. 

It makes me wary of future works and I have already written off D&D as two people I will never give money to willingly. They certainly don't care for the integrity of what they are handling and they certainly don't care about their core fanbase. So I don't care for them. Lets see if the ADD crew will be there to support their next show. Cause I sure won't. 

Edited by MrJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/09/2017 at 8:14 PM, Faint said:

Serious question: Is there anything -- I mean, literally, anything -- that Benioff and Weiss are not missing the point of? If you have ever watched those behind the episode videos you understand my question is an earnest one. 

'Inside the Episode' is about the cringiest thing about GoT, especially given they now release Inside the Episode after the regular episode, and nowadays it's mostly D & D pathetically attempting to explain their moronic decisions. It's like even they know their work is a clusterfuck that can't stand on its own and they now need to explain away their incompetence, because, you know, fuck actually writing something good.

Edited by Beardy the Wildling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/09/2017 at 11:10 AM, Pearly said:

mmm... I don't see why they would get the point given that they pretty much missed everything else.

No. I'm not being fair. They got the point of Gregor right... I think?

Well, given they missed the point of Ramsay by saying 'He's not like Joffrey, he's kind of a badass... he... uh... fights and stuff' I'm gonna argue they probably think Gregor's a cool badass like Ramsay. They may as well at this point, given they think honour = being a moron and Cersei = Carol the Tiger Mom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Beardy the Wildling said:

'Inside the Episode' is about the cringiest thing about GoT, especially given they now release Inside the Episode after the regular episode, and nowadays it's most D & D pathetically attempting to explain their moronic decisions. It's like even they know their work is a clusterfuck that can't stand on its own and they now need to explain away their incompetence, because, you know, fuck actually writing something good.

:D you know what drives me the craziest? Half the time they don't even say the characters names right. It's infuriating lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

:D you know what drives me the craziest? Half the time they don't even say the characters names right. It's infuriating lol

'And Lady Sandra is a Bolton' - Line actually kept in the final cut of Game of Thrones.

And no-one was surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MrJay said:

You may be right from a monetary sense, but I hate this. 

I hate when people are used and discarded like this. And yes, the early adopters were used. 

If GoT started like it did this season (spectacle over careful plot and intrigue) it would have been canceled season 1. People came to it because us book readers and early fans hyped the living hell out of it and everyone saw from episode 1 that this show was not your typical high fantasy. We craved something different and this show delivered. 

Now that the masses have jumped on the hype train, they are catered to *at the expense of the original fans*. Now your insights on characters and deep history and motives are rebuffed like you are some kind of pompous nerd. This is no longer our show,  despite it owing a great deal of its success to us.

That sucks. 

 

It sucks even more when you realize that 9/10 shows already cater to the masses who just want to see flashy lights and cool one liners. 

It makes me wary of future works and I have already written off D&D as two people I will never give money to willingly. They certainly don't care for the integrity of what they are handling and they certainly don't care about their core fanbase. So I don't care for them. Lets see if the ADD crew will be there to support their next show. Cause I sure won't. 

If GOT started like this?  The reason GOT started the way it did was because D & D signed up to do an adaptation of a set of novels they loved (or at least purported to).  They are fans of the source material as much as anyone else, at least in GRRM's estimation who signed off on this.  I think D & D care a great lot about the integrity of the source material and this kind of sentiment is unfair to them, who are stuck essentially writing fan-fiction because GRRM can't and won't finish the damn books.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now